tv [untitled] November 23, 2012 8:00am-8:30am PST
this is another building that has multiple jurisdictions. i would hope that we could rehabilitate the building. the first two things that need to be done in my opinion while this building is a national landmark it is not a city landmark. i have talked to the landmark's board. they started a fire and would like to request the zoo committee or this commission to send alert to the planning department to urge this a city landmark . this would give it additional protection that any changes would have to go before the city -- the landmarks commission. although this commission did approve it being a national landmark i believe
in 1979. the other thing i think needs to be done is like when the staff or arts commission is do a joint study to see what work needs to be done to rehabilitate the building. not only the physical building but the art. this was successful that we did. the commission did with arg of coit tower. i think we should use the same model at the dalia flyshacker memorial building. since the next item is the rehabilitation of the children's playground, if my memory served me right, these buildings are right next to each other so i hope the staff will take action on this important building, thank you. >> is there anyone else who would like to make public comment on this item?
being none, public comment is closed. this was discussion only, commissioners, we are on item 7. san francisco zoo, eleanor friend playground. >> good morning commissioners, karen money brodac from parks planning capital project. i'm excited and will hand this over to joe, the vice president of education at the zoo. i wanted to briefly introduce the item. again, this is discussion and possible action to approve the zoo's conceptual plan for the renovation to the playground at the zoo and expenditure of up to 2.3
million. including 138,000 from recreation and parks department. two, to adopt finding under the california environmental quality act and adopt mitigation, monitoring and reporting program. that 138,000 was already previously approved. just reaffirming the expenditure of that. this is existing playground in poor shape. doesn't meet certain current safety code. included in your commission report under attachments three and four, we worked closely with the planning department to identify and describe all the appropriate seek what language that is needed the to move forward. it was included and covered under the environmental impact report. we have included that information in your packets. so staff recommendation is to approve. i will now turn it over to joe fitting, thank you.
>> good morning commissioners and general managers. it is pleasure to be here. i'm delighted to continue the conversation about amazing parks and how we can engage our families in unique ways. it is my personal wish to leave no child inside. i think we have an amazing project that will help advance that mission. i'm joe fitting, vp of conservation and education. i started my career at the zoo in 1980. >> powerpoint. there you sgo. >> 1980 as an education specialist, now i'm the vp of conservation and education. the mission of the san francisco zoo, one is to connect our families and
children, most importantly, to nature and, of course, animals. i just want to point out the friends family in 1980 thought that was so important they helped transform a tired old playground in 1980s. they will help us today with this new project. the structures are typical from the 80s. very standard. go ahead. they were replacing old metal and cement structures. that was the design standards for the 80s also, somewhat metal and woods were brought in. but very kind of stark in nature. this last image is disturbing. this is not enough for our children. they deserve more. the next slide you will see is going to show you the
images of what is possible. the design is play based experiences that led to inspiration, exploration and education. it allows children and parents of all abilities to enjoy the many activities, forms and colors, connected them to nature and our animals. for our youngest, learning about the water's edges to places imagined. our polar zones. to an irresistible. this is an irresistible event and exploration of all ages, this design of the banyan tree. let me read you a final
quote that emphasizes while this will be amazing for our children. all studies show children develop an appreciation and connection for and with animals if they can learn about them on their own terms and in manners appropriate to their age and psychological and physiological development. this new playground allows us to do this. by doing, begin the long-term process of creating life-long advocates in young people for nature and animal. please help us make it so. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> that concludes the presentation on this item. thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? being none, public comment
is closed, commissioners. commissioner lowe. >> i would like to make certain finding in connection with this project and would like to make the motion but defer to colleagues if they have questions regarding this matter. >> commissioner bonia. >> yes. >> i was looking through my packet and trying to see if i could find information. a little more information on the materials that will be used to construct all of these different venues. also wanted to know more about the shelf life of these structures and how they will be maintained. if new materials are going
to be used, if there will be new plans. if you will have a maintenance -- special maintenance plan for these materials. because i have never seen such extravagance of playground structures. they looked special so wanted to get more information. >> thank you, commissioner. tim vu, commissioner of philanthropy at the zoo. a design and build firm has been commissioned so they see the process through from conception to construction. they have been careful looking at materials now. they are creating the structures off-site so they can modularly put in the playground. steel infrastructures with a variety of composite materials that will be around them that have been tested for understanding, the toe pog fi of the zoo,
the salt weather, corrosion issues. they have looked at all of these issues. they also looked at the maintenance issues, so we are looking at even the ground levels around them. asphalt, concrete, what will last over time, what is easier to maintain, what prevents things from cracking. that's been taken into consideration. and also particularly there's a tactile element in all the structures so that disabled children when they plan them will be able to feel the structures and have a tactile sense of what they are doing, as well as people visually needing to look at that. that has been looked at carefully. mayor's office and disability has gone through this. approved it as well. >> what will be the shelf life of the structures. >> we look at -- >> considering the ones previously designed. were 1980.
we are just now replacing them. i must say i have been to the zoo many times. i have always wondered now what kind of playground is this. who really plays in it. i have seen kids play there. but it doesn't seem to have the excitement for kids that i would think would normally be the case. >> thank you, commissioner. it is very much so that this will have a much more exciting sense. we have asked scientific arts to tell us the shelf life of these. they do not have a sense of an ending. the materials are meant to extend as long as we can maintain and support them. there is not a specific closing or end date for that. so really be up to us to maintain them as they are. but they are designed to endure the weather and
elements. little kids jumping up and down for as long as they will be there. >> they are safe for children. >> absolutely. >> absolutely safe for children. >> we have had everything vetted by the mayor's office as well for all the issues. >> good. >> thank you. >> seeing no other comments, commissioner lowe. >> yes, i would like to make the following finding before we move. to acknowledge the condition of the existing playground is dilapidated, the subject of lawsuit requiring ada compliance and is in need of repairs. exhibit 3 of ceqa addresses the project alternative, which we did receive communications from citizens requesting the note project alternative. i think the zoo master plan does address the need for
children's play activity so that a note project alternative is not feasible. i also want to acknowledge the eir, which is dated 1998 is adopted as part of our record in approving this project and that i think the concept plan does achieve the goals of what's referred to in the staff report for ada compliance, environmental education and to also boost attendance at the zoo can we make this into one motion or -- i move we approve the san francisco zoological society conceptual plan for the renovation of the eleanor friend playground, adopt finds ining our package under exhibit 3, acknowledging the
mitigation and reporting program measures which are recommended in the staff report. i just want to add that will be for construction or completion, particularly on monitoring animal behavior. adopt a seek what finding, adopt the monitoring and reporting requirements and approve the conceptual plan, finding that it is consistent with the zoo master plan. >> second that. >> it's been moved and seconded. any questions? seeing none, all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed? hearing none, it is unanimous, thank you. >> we are now on item 8, which is 181 fremont street.
third presentation in 16 hours so karen brodak before you on 181 fremont street. the item before you is discussion and possible action to recommend to the planning commission the net shadow pr proposed 181 fremont will not have adverse impact on use of union square pursuant to planning code section 295, the sunlight ordinance. b, portion be allocated to the proposed project 181 fremont street and adopt finding under the california environmental quality act and adopt
mitigation monitoring and reporting. we presented this item for review at the capital committee. we are speaking on the same presentation. we provided a bit more information as you received, an additional attachment under attachment e. you received updated exhibit 1 also under e. so full packet should be available to you. i should be able to do a presentation. joined by kevin guy from the planning department. if you have questions for him as well. thank you. >> as you can see this is a map of the transit center district plan that this commission also reviewed with the planning commission in october. the 181 fremont site is identified with an arrow. here is a map that shows
the vicinity of the project. the project is a 54 with seven residential unit, qualifies for lead gold, environmental certification program. here is a few renderings of the project, both at street level and more detailed depictions. there is a green space that surrounds the building. a couple of things that might be of particular interest to this commission is fact that the project includes an elevator. this is adjacent to the transbay center, which has a large park. will have a large new park above it. this would provide for public access. public lobby and rest rooms are something we are always interested in that will allow people to access this
park. this is the sky bridge to the new park. here are a couple images provided by project sponsors. they render images how this building may appear. this project included in the plan provide amenities and also fees that go toward certain public benefits that have been discussed and considered in the transbay plan, including open space, street and transportation, downtown art fee, art work fund, child care fee, among other fees. this also does pay into a fund that provides improvements to open spaces inside but often outside the plan area that we discussed in the october
11th hearing. i will talk about the shadow. this was analyzed in the october 11th presentation that you saw. the analysis of this shadow was included within those shadow images and the presentation including the slide shows that you all saw. as we said at that time we would be coming back when we have specific shadow with more detail from specific projects. again, 181 fremont was included in that shadow analysis as an unsculpted form. 181 was applied by the planning staff here today and analyzed. the specific shadow analysis was included, included in your packet as you received memo from esa, the environmental consultants that did that
further analysis. both analysis at that time and at that time show new shadows on prop k park except for union square. about the detail on union square from 181 fremont. this occurs two weeks in the year. the week of august 16th and april 24th. it occurs for five minutes, from 7:25 to 7:30 a.m. the 181 fremont project is approximately two-thirds of a mile from union square. the amount is.0005 of total available -- total available annual sun laoegt. .003 of the existing budget. this amount of shadow was available before both commissioners took action on the 11th. included in your packet, we
have also included images that show shadow on non prop k parks. that is why in your packet you will see that we show a shadow on parks other than union square, the only park shadowed by this project that falls under prop k. so here you see the shadow that -- go to the video now. this is a video that shows how the shadow falls. because the shadow falls for a very quick period of time you can't actually see the shadow. as it passes, i'm going to quickly pause. the lower left-hand corner, that is union square. that is the little blue sliver you can see on union square. it occurs basically when the sunlight lines up in such a way that made lane allow for that sunlight to be cast for a moment.
here is the zoo, where you can see the orange strip. again, from 7:25 to 7:30 a.m. here is where that shadow is cast on union square. so again the actually design has been sculpted and been refined from earlier height of 875 to 700. think i'm going to ask kevin guy to come up and talk a bit about that. one thing i wanted to mention before i turn it over. included in your finding is an analysis that was done of usage at that time in union square. there was very minimal usage at that time. mostly members of the public passing through the square quickly. the cafe was open, though they don't generally have a lot of customers at that time or seating. but there were people inside the cafe at that time. just to understand that is
why we anticipate use would not be impacted by this shadow. kevin. >> thank you. kevin guy with planning department staff. couple things i would like to note as a refreshing from your joint hearing in october. the height limitations for new buildings in the center plan area and bulk regulations that talk about how buildings should be sculpted and act on the skyline, those were set very much with an eye toward trying to minimize shadow impacts of new development on section 295 and parks and other open spaces. the mere -- for individual projects the mere act of complying with those is in and of itself a means of
addressing prop k impacts, sort of build in, as it were. specific to the project, if we can get that up, the top portion that reaches up to a spire, those are decorative features that are above sort of the habitable floors of the building. the shadow being cast on union square is partly contributed by habitable portions of the building but part is cast by the decorative features. the decorative features are actually primarily open. they are clear glass surrounded by these relatively thin structural members and the spire. what you are seeing is a bit different from the reality of how the shadows would act in real life. the sun obviously would
pass through the clear glass. because of the distance between this building and union square, any shadow that would potentially be cast by the sort of structural elements at the very top would actually -- if they appear at all, would appear sort of light gray. very diffuse in color because of the nature of the sun. the light being able to pass around at great distances. there is sort of a technical clarification. obviously it shows number the graphics as a hard line being cast by the spire. i'm available for the technicalities there. >> karen money brodak from
the department. the item before you is to recommend to the planning commission the following -- the actions included in your packet and adopt we have included a draft resolution under attachment e for your consideration. thank you very much. >> is there anyone who would like to make public comment. please come forward. >> president, commissioners, dan kingsley, with sks investments. we are the sponsor. we are here to answer questions you may v. we appreciate your consideration this morning. thank you. >> thank you. >> jeffrey hiller. we are the architects and are available. one of the things about this project that we are especially pleased about is the bridge to the roof park of the transbay, which i think is going to be one of those really special and useful pieces of this concept. thank you.
>> thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this item? being none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner lowe. >> thank you, president beal. this did come before the capitol committee. we did move this matter to the full commission for the following reason the matter was heard by the capital committee we didn't have a full package. we do now have a full package, included in your package, which is the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. certificate of determination and exemption from environmental review. and a community benefit plan. so we do now have a complete package. we did move this to the general calendar with the recommendation of approval. i would like make the motion to have this project approved. >> commissioner, is it the resolution that you would like to adopt that is in your binder? >> yes. >> thank you.
>> commissioner. >> prior to seconding my colleague's motion, i want to say a week ago i was contacted by the head of the union square association karen flood. she said their association was supportive. i think that is and important vote of approval. so with that if there is nothing elsely second commissioner lowe's motion. >> commissioner bonia. >> i just wanted to thank the project sponsors for preparing the mitigation program. speaking for myself i think it would have been difficult to support it without that program in place. because i know how difficult it is for the community to deal with these types of projects. even with this -- with the program you have proposed, i know it is not going to be easy. i know it is going to cause
great inconveniences and hardships for the community residing around the project. >> thank you. it's been moved and second. all in favor, opposed? it is unanimous, thank you. >> item 9, water conservation project. >> good morning commissioners. before you is discussion and possible action to approve the memorandum of understanding between recreational park department and public commission for implementation for alamo park water conservation project. the p.u.c. extends grant assistance for retrofits and encouraging large water uses to implement necessary retrofits to maximize our ability